Pages

Beauty Notes: Biting the Hand that Feeds You


Urban Decay has decided to make its products available in China. With just one press statement, which attempts to reconcile this business decision and its brand image, Urban Decay has managed to both anger its existing customer base (those opposed to animal testing) and insult the Chinese market that it is trying to court.

You can read the full statement at Temptalia, but here are some choice bits (emphases mine):
"[W]e believe that change cannot and will not happen by outside pressure alone in a closed market. Change can only happen from within. When we enter the Chinese market, we will do our part to help make those changes.
"When we were considering expanding into China, a group of marketing consultants told us to remove the section of our company history that describes our crusade against animal testing. "It doesn't mean anything to the Chinese beauty customer," they said. Of course, we refused. Our “no animal testing” policy is part of who we are, and has been since day one. The news that animal issues don't even register with the average Chinese consumer was one of the biggest factors in our decision to go there. During Urban Decay's infancy, we worked hard to inform consumers about animal rights in the United States and Europe. The battleground for animal rights is now in China, and we want to be there to encourage dialogue and provoke change.
"We also hope to shed some light on women's rights issues in China. As a company that caters to a female customer, this is extremely important to us. For one thing, going into China is a way for us to advance women into important professional positions. We will help grow the cosmetics industry, which primarily employs and creates career paths for women. Although workers' employment rights are a relatively new concept there, progress has been made partially because of pressure from businesses, consumers, and advocacy groups from other countries. Based on this, our belief is that both an outside force and inside pressure for change can result in helping transform both the importance of women and animal testing policies in China. And more importantly, we hope to influence the perspective of the citizens on both of these issues.
"If we don't go to China, other companies without our beliefs will, and the culture will never change."
When you strip it down, their argument basically is this:
1. Chinese consumers are living in a moral vacuum and need to be educated re. enlightened values like animal/women's/workers'/[insert your own cause] rights by a socially responsible company (which we are, really) operating within the country's own boundaries. So actually, we're doing this for the Chinese people's own good.
2. Of course, we're also in it to make money. We hope to convince you of the rightness of our decision, but if you don't like it, then you can take your business elsewhere.
When China goes to Africa to make money, it doesn't (try to) dress it up as being "for Africa's own good", like they're in it for humanitarian purposes. And it's worth noting that most cosmetic brands do not normally feel compelled to make a press statement like this one from Urban Decay.

China's market in cosmetics is huge and growing; according to the Li & Fung Research Centre, in 2011 it was valued at more than $17.3 billion in retail sales, a 18.7% increase on the previous year's. I think I prefer a company that is honest about its profit motivations, rather than one that tries to have its cake (shiny, youthful, "nontraditional" brand image) and eat it too.

Update (June 8): Since that press release was made, Urban Decay has lost its Leaping Bunny certification and been removed from PETA's list of cruelty-free companies.

13 comments:

  1. Nailed it. Utterly paternalistic and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't buy any UD products (they're not available in Australia; I guess we're not rich or big enough for them), but I still find this press release insulting in every way. They must think their customers' are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really don't like China myself (as a national entity) but I find the consdescending, moralizing attitude the entire world has toward China even more disgusting. You could read "White Man's Burden" into this without it being much of a stretch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also gotta love how they make a really tenuous attempt to link it to womens' rights. "We have to save Chinese women because they're not capable of saving themselves without our low-paying low-entry cosmetics pushing jobs!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Uh huh. What really gets to me is the "us vs them" mentality that this statement exploits (or tries to) and validates in its readers. "We know that we're all so responsible and humane, and let's give ourselves a clap on the back for that, but everybody knows how backward China is, and unfortunately we have to play by different rules there." It plays into all those common prejudices the West has about China.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not just China; Asia in general.

    To add fuel to the fire, a personal pet peeve of mine is when people assume a product is inferior because it's been manufactured in China.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly. To paraphrase, "what happens in china stays in china," seems to be the general mindset. People condemn China (and not just China but other poorer nations as well) verbally, and then behind their backs outsource their own dirty sordid work to these places, so they can appear spotless in reputation back home.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One thing that gets me is how people use the Foxconn factories as an excuse to sneer at Apple, whether the presumed inferior quality of the goods or the business ethics involved.

    The Korean media makes an especially huge stink about how the suicide rate at Foxconn supposedly climbed during the manufacture of the latest iPad model. Still lower than the suicide rate in Korea, when adjusted for age and socioeconomic status.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hadn't seen it this way but I think you have a point. I mostly apperciated the fact they were not trying to hide they were there for the money, you have to admit not every company is that open about the money motivations, though. But ok, I get what you mean about trying to sugarcoat it with patronizing arguments.

    On the other hand, I stopped believeing long ago that there any was morality in capitalism, so I'm not easily surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. you have to admit not every company is that open about the money motivations, though.

    They don't have to be; it's assumed. To state it explicitly just makes me think that they're trying to make excuses for something (which they usually are). Consumer products are all about branding and image, which is why press releases are always manipulative to a lesser or greater degree. I'm not surprised or even disappointed by UD's decision, I'm just disgusted at how they badly they tried to market that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  11. this x a million. it disgusts me to the pits of my stomach that, not just (often Western) nations but companies think they can roll into countries (often and usually non-Western) to educate them, change them and give them some kind of culture they lack. otherwise, what are we? animals. God.

    but hey, humanitarianism is currently the world's most popular reason for doing anything.

    thank you for this. I hope more read it. instead of remaining in the realm of animal rights discourse, they should also realise just how horrid this is from another perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @stephanie Thanks for the comment. :)

    ReplyDelete